Mycoplasma gallisepticum in Poultry: Chronic Respiratory Disease and Control Strategies

Introduction

Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG) is a cell wall deficient bacterium belonging to the class Mollicutes and is the primary etiological agent of chronic respiratory disease (CRD) in chickens and infectious sinusitis in turkeys. MG infection imposes substantial economic losses on the global poultry industry through reduced egg production, decreased feed conversion efficiency, increased mortality, and carcass condemnation at processing [1, 2]. The organism is highly adapted to the avian respiratory tract and exhibits a complex pathogenesis involving adherence to ciliated epithelium, immune modulation, and synergistic interactions with other respiratory pathogens such as Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) and Newcastle disease virus [3, 4]. Control of MG relies on a combination of biosecurity, surveillance, vaccination, and antimicrobial therapy, although emerging antimicrobial resistance complicates treatment protocols [5, 6]. This article provides a detailed review of MG biology, pathogenesis, diagnostic approaches, and integrated control strategies.

Taxonomy and Morphology

Mycoplasma gallisepticum is classified within the class Mollicutes, order Mycoplasmatales, and family Mycoplasmataceae. Mollicutes are characterized by the absence of a peptidoglycan cell wall, which confers intrinsic resistance to beta-lactam antimicrobials and necessitates alternative mechanisms for maintaining osmotic stability [7]. The MG genome is approximately 1.0 Mb in size with a low guanine-cytosine content of approximately 31%, reflecting reductive evolution from a gram-positive ancestor [8]. The lack of a cell wall results in pleomorphic morphology, with cells ranging from 0.2 to 0.3 micrometers in diameter and exhibiting coccoid, filamentous, or flask-shaped forms [9]. A specialized terminal tip structure, the bleb or attachment organelle, mediates adherence to host epithelial cells and is critical for colonization [10].

Pathogenesis and Clinical Disease

Adhesion and Colonization

MG initiates infection by adhering to the ciliated epithelial cells of the trachea, nasal passages, and sinuses. The primary adhesin is the cytadhesin protein GapA, which interacts with sialoglycoconjugates on the host cell surface [11]. Additional accessory proteins, including CrmA and Hlp3, stabilize the attachment organelle and facilitate gliding motility [12]. Following adherence, MG induces ciliostasis, loss of ciliated epithelial cells, and mucosal inflammation. The resulting impairment of mucociliary clearance predisposes the host to secondary bacterial infections, particularly with APEC, leading to the characteristic airsacculitis and pericarditis seen in severe CRD [13].

Immune Evasion

MG employs multiple strategies to evade host immune responses. The organism undergoes high-frequency phase and size variation of surface lipoproteins, particularly the Vlha (variable lipoprotein and hemagglutinin) family, which allows antigenic variation and immune escape [14]. MG also modulates the host immune response by inducing a Th2-biased cytokine profile, suppressing macrophage phagocytosis, and reducing the expression of major histocompatibility complex class II molecules on antigen-presenting cells [15, 16]. These mechanisms contribute to persistent infection and the establishment of carrier states in recovered birds.

Clinical Signs and Lesions

In chickens, MG infection typically manifests as chronic respiratory disease characterized by rales, coughing, nasal discharge, and conjunctivitis. In laying hens, infection causes a drop in egg production of 10 to 20 percent and an increase in shell quality defects [17]. In turkeys, MG produces infectious sinusitis with pronounced infraorbital sinus swelling and caseous exudate. Gross pathological lesions include catarrhal tracheitis, airsacculitis with foamy or caseous exudate, and fibrinous pericarditis and perihepatitis in cases complicated by APEC coinfection [18]. Histologically, the tracheal mucosa shows loss of cilia, epithelial hyperplasia, and lymphoplasmacytic infiltration.

Diagnostic Approaches

Accurate diagnosis of MG infection is essential for implementing control measures and monitoring flock health. Diagnostic methods include serological assays, molecular detection, and culture isolation. The choice of assay depends on the purpose of testing, whether for routine surveillance, confirmation of clinical cases, or certification of MG-free status.

Serological Methods

Serological testing is widely used for flock-level surveillance. The most common assays are the rapid serum agglutination (RSA) test, the hemagglutination inhibition (HI) test, and commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits. The RSA test is a simple, inexpensive screening tool that detects antibodies against MG surface antigens. However, it has lower specificity due to cross-reactivity with other avian mycoplasmas, particularly Mycoplasma synoviae [19]. The HI test is more specific and is often used as a confirmatory assay following RSA screening. HI titers correlate with protection and are used to evaluate vaccine responses [20]. Commercial ELISA kits offer high throughput and quantitative results, making them suitable for large-scale surveillance programs. These assays detect antibodies against specific MG antigens, such as the GapA protein or the pMGA family of lipoproteins, and provide improved specificity compared to RSA [21]. A summary of serological methods is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Comparison of Serological Assays for Mycoplasma gallisepticum Detection

Molecular Diagnostics

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays provide rapid, sensitive, and specific detection of MG DNA directly from clinical samples such as tracheal swabs, choanal cleft swabs, and air sac exudates. Conventional PCR targeting the 16S rRNA gene or the mgc2 gene is widely used for species identification [22]. Real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) offers improved sensitivity and allows quantification of bacterial load, which can be correlated with disease severity [23]. Multiplex PCR panels that simultaneously detect MG, Mycoplasma synoviae, and other avian respiratory pathogens are increasingly employed in diagnostic laboratories [24]. Molecular typing methods, including random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis, amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP), and multilocus sequence typing (MLST), are used for epidemiological investigations and tracking strain transmission [25, 26].

Culture and Isolation

Culture of MG is the gold standard for definitive diagnosis but is technically demanding and time-consuming. MG requires specialized media, such as Frey's medium or modified Hayflick's medium, supplemented with horse serum, yeast extract, and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) [27]. Colonies exhibit a characteristic fried-egg appearance on solid media after 3 to 10 days of incubation at 37 degrees Celsius in a humidified atmosphere with 5 percent carbon dioxide. Isolation is often unsuccessful in birds that have received antimicrobial therapy or in samples with low bacterial loads [28].

Diagnostic Algorithm

A recommended diagnostic algorithm for MG is presented in Figure 1. The algorithm integrates clinical suspicion, serological screening, and molecular confirmation.

flowchart TD
    A[Clinical signs of respiratory disease], > B{Serological screening}
    B, >|RSA positive| C[Confirm with HI or ELISA]
    B, >|RSA negative| D[No further testing if low suspicion]
    C, >|Positive| E[Collect tracheal swabs]
    C, >|Negative| F[Consider other etiologies]
    E, > G{Real-time PCR}
    G, >|Positive| H[MG confirmed]
    G, >|Negative| I[Attempt culture if clinically indicated]
    H, > J[Antimicrobial susceptibility testing if treatment planned]
    I, > J
    J, > K[Implement control measures]

Figure 1. Diagnostic algorithm for Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection in poultry.

Control Strategies

Control of MG in poultry operations is based on three pillars: biosecurity and management, vaccination, and antimicrobial therapy. An integrated approach combining these elements is necessary for effective long-term control.

Biosecurity and Management

Biosecurity measures are the cornerstone of MG prevention. MG is transmitted horizontally through direct contact, aerosolized respiratory droplets, and contaminated fomites. Vertical transmission via the egg occurs in infected breeder flocks, leading to early infection in progeny [29]. Key biosecurity practices include:

• Maintaining closed flocks with all-in/all-out production systems.
• Implementing strict quarantine protocols for new birds.
• Disinfecting equipment, housing, and transport vehicles with agents effective against mycoplasmas, such as quaternary ammonium compounds and phenolic disinfectants [30].
• Controlling access to poultry houses and using dedicated footwear and clothing.
• Monitoring and controlling wild bird populations, as some species can serve as reservoirs [31].

Eradication of MG from infected breeder flocks is achievable through depopulation, cleaning, and repopulation with MG-free stock. This approach is economically viable for high-value genetic lines but may be impractical for commercial broiler and layer operations [32].

Vaccination

Vaccination is a key tool for reducing the clinical impact of MG infection and limiting transmission. Several vaccine types are available, including live attenuated vaccines, inactivated bacterins, and recombinant vector vaccines.

Live attenuated vaccines, such as the F strain, ts-11 strain, and 6/85 strain, are administered via eye drop, spray, or drinking water. The F strain is moderately virulent and provides good protection against respiratory disease but can cause mild lesions and may revert to virulence [33]. The ts-11 strain is a temperature-sensitive mutant that replicates in the upper respiratory tract without causing significant pathology and induces strong mucosal and systemic immunity [34]. The 6/85 strain is highly attenuated and safe for use in layers and breeders but may require multiple doses for optimal protection [35].

Inactivated bacterins are oil-adjuvanted preparations that induce humoral immunity and reduce egg production losses. They are typically administered intramuscularly to breeder flocks to provide passive immunity to progeny via maternal antibodies [36]. However, bacterins do not prevent colonization or shedding and must be used in conjunction with biosecurity measures.

Recombinant vector vaccines, including fowlpox virus and herpesvirus of turkeys (HVT) vectors expressing MG antigens, represent a newer generation of vaccines. These vaccines offer the advantage of DIVA (differentiating infected from vaccinated animals) capability, as vaccinated birds can be serologically distinguished from naturally infected birds using specific ELISA tests [37, 38].

Antimicrobial Therapy

Antimicrobial therapy is used to treat clinical cases and reduce shedding, but it does not eliminate infection from a flock. The lack of a cell wall renders MG intrinsically resistant to beta-lactams and other cell wall active agents. Effective antimicrobial classes include macrolides (tylosin, tilmicosin, tulathromycin), tetracyclines (oxytetracycline, doxycycline, chlortetracycline), fluoroquinolones (enrofloxacin, danofloxacin), and pleuromutilins (tiamulin, valnemulin) [39, 40].

Antimicrobial resistance in MG is an increasing concern. Resistance to tylosin and other macrolides has been reported in multiple countries, often associated with mutations in the 23S rRNA gene [41]. Fluoroquinolone resistance is mediated by mutations in the DNA gyrase genes gyrA and gyrB and the topoisomerase IV gene parC [42]. Tetracycline resistance, although less common, has been documented and is linked to the acquisition of tet(M) or tet(O) genes encoding ribosomal protection proteins [43]. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing should be performed whenever possible to guide treatment selection and monitor resistance trends.

Integrated Control Programs

Successful MG control programs integrate biosecurity, vaccination, and judicious antimicrobial use. For broiler breeders and layer flocks, vaccination with live attenuated vaccines combined with strict biosecurity is the standard approach. In regions with high MG prevalence, antimicrobial therapy may be used during peak stress periods, such as onset of lay, to reduce clinical signs [44]. Eradication programs for elite breeding stock rely on depopulation and repopulation with MG-free birds, supported by rigorous surveillance using serology and PCR [45].

Antimicrobial Resistance Trends

Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in MG is critical for maintaining therapeutic options. Global data indicate that resistance to macrolides and fluoroquinolones is widespread, particularly in regions with intensive poultry production and high antimicrobial use [46]. Resistance to tiamulin and valnemulin remains relatively low, making pleuromutilins a valuable option for treatment [47]. The emergence of multidrug resistant strains, including those resistant to both macrolides and fluoroquinolones, has been documented and poses a significant challenge to disease management [48]. Molecular mechanisms of resistance are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Molecular Mechanisms of Antimicrobial Resistance in Mycoplasma gallisepticum

Future Directions

Advances in genomics and bioinformatics are providing new insights into MG pathogenesis, evolution, and transmission. Whole genome sequencing enables high-resolution typing and tracking of outbreak strains, identification of virulence determinants, and surveillance of antimicrobial resistance markers [49]. The development of improved vaccines, including rationally attenuated strains and multivalent recombinant vectors, holds promise for more effective and safer immunization. Additionally, the application of computational models for predicting host-pathogen interactions and optimizing control strategies is an emerging area of research [50].

Conclusion

Mycoplasma gallisepticum remains a major pathogen of poultry worldwide, causing chronic respiratory disease and significant economic losses. Effective control requires a comprehensive approach that includes rigorous biosecurity, strategic vaccination, and prudent antimicrobial use. Advances in molecular diagnostics and genomic surveillance are enhancing the ability to detect, characterize, and manage MG infections. Continued research into pathogenesis, vaccine development, and antimicrobial resistance mechanisms is essential for sustaining and improving control programs in the face of evolving challenges.

References

[1] Ley DH. Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection. In: Swayne DE, editor. Diseases of Poultry. 14th ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2020. p. 922-961.

[2] Kleven SH. Mycoplasmas in the etiology of multifactorial respiratory disease. Poultry Science. 1998;77(8):1146-1149.

[3] Nunoya T, Yagihashi T, Tajima M, Nagasawa Y. Occurrence of Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection in chickens with respiratory disease. Avian Pathology. 1995;24(3):487-498.

[4] Peebles ED, Branton SL, Burnham MR, Gerard PD. Effects of Mycoplasma gallisepticum inoculation on egg production and quality in commercial layer chickens. Poultry Science. 2003;82(10):1536-1542.

[5] Evans JD, Leigh SA, Branton SL, Collier SD, Pharr GT, Bearson SMD. Mycoplasma gallisepticum: current and developing means to control the avian pathogen. Journal of Applied Poultry Research. 2005;14(4):757-763.

[6] Gautier-Bouchardon AV. Antimicrobial resistance in Mycoplasma spp. Microbiology Spectrum. 2018;6(4):ARBA-0030-2018.

[7] Razin S, Yogev D, Naot Y. Molecular biology and pathogenicity of mycoplasmas. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 1998;62(4):1094-1156.

[8] Papazisi L, Gorton TS, Kutish G, Markham PF, Browning GF, Nguyen DK, et al. The complete genome sequence of the avian pathogen Mycoplasma gallisepticum strain R(low). Microbiology. 2003;149(9):2307-2316.

[9] Bencina D. Haemagglutinins of pathogenic avian mycoplasmas. Avian Pathology. 2002;31(6):535-547.

[10] Winner F, Rosengarten R, Citti C. In vitro cell invasion of Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Infection and Immunity. 2000;68(7):4238-4244.

[11] Goh MS, Gorton TS, Forsyth MH, Troy KE, Geary SJ. Molecular and biochemical analysis of a 105 kDa Mycoplasma gallisepticum cytadhesin (GapA). Microbiology. 1998;144(11):2971-2978.

[12] Indikova I, Much P, Stipkovits L, Szostak MP, Rosengarten R, Citti C. Role of the GapA and CrmA cytadhesins of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in promoting virulence and host colonization. Infection and Immunity. 2013;81(5):1618-1624.

[13] Springer WT, Luskus C, Pourciau SS. Infectious bronchitis virus and Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection in chickens. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 1974;35(11):1401-1404.

[14] Noormohammadi AH, Markham PF, Kanci A, Whithear KG, Browning GF. A novel mechanism for control of antigenic variation in the haemagglutinin gene family of Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Molecular Microbiology. 2000;35(4):911-923.

[15] Gaunson JE, Philip CJ, Whithear KG, Browning GF. The cellular immune response in the tracheal mucosa to Mycoplasma gallisepticum in vaccinated and unvaccinated chickens. Vaccine. 2006;24(15):2831-2838.

[16] Majumder S, Zappulla F, Silbart LK. Mycoplasma gallisepticum lipid associated membrane proteins up-regulate nitric oxide production in chicken macrophages. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology. 2014;160(3-4):225-231.

[17] Branton SL, Lott BD, May JD, Maslin WR, Boyle CR, Pharr GT. The effects of F strain Mycoplasma gallisepticum, Mycoplasma synoviae, and the dual infection in commercial layer hens over a 44-week laying cycle. Avian Diseases. 1997;41(4):832-837.

[18] Nunoya T, Kanai K, Yagihashi T, Hoshi S, Shibuya K, Tajima M. Natural case of airsacculitis in broiler chickens caused by Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. 1997;59(6):467-470.

[19] Kleven SH. Serological monitoring of Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae in poultry. Avian Pathology. 1998;27(S1):S10-S14.

[20] Yoder HW. A historical account of the diagnosis and characterization of strains of Mycoplasma gallisepticum of low virulence. Avian Diseases. 1986;30(3):510-518.

[21] Kempf I, Gesbert F, Guittet M, Bennejean G. Evaluation of two commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits for the detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum antibodies. Avian Pathology. 1994;23(2):329-338.

[22] Garcia M, Ikuta N, Levisohn S, Kleven SH. Evaluation and comparison of various PCR methods for detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection in chickens. Avian Diseases. 2005;49(1):125-132.

[23] Raviv Z, Callison SA, Ferguson-Noel N, Kleven SH. The Mycoplasma gallisepticum 16S-23S rRNA intergenic spacer region sequence as a novel tool for epizootiological studies. Avian Diseases. 2007;51(2):555-560.

[24] Hess M, Neubauer C, Hackl R. Interlaboratory comparison of a multiplex PCR for detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae. Avian Pathology. 2007;36(4):307-311.

[25] Geary SJ, Forsyth MH, Aboul Saoud S, Wang G, Berg DE, Berg CM. Mycoplasma gallisepticum strain differentiation by arbitrary primer PCR (RAPD) fingerprinting. Molecular and Cellular Probes. 1994;8(4):311-316.

[26] Ferguson-Noel N, Cookson K, Laibinis VA, Kleven SH. The efficacy of three commercial Mycoplasma gallisepticum vaccines in laying hens. Avian Diseases. 2012;56(2):272-275.

[27] Frey ML, Hanson RP, Anderson DP. A medium for the isolation of avian mycoplasmas. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 1968;29(11):2163-2171.

[28] Kleven SH. Mycoplasmas in poultry. In: Tully JG, Razin S, editors. Molecular and Diagnostic Procedures in Mycoplasmology. Academic Press; 1996. p. 233-240.

[29] Levisohn S, Kleven SH. Avian mycoplasmosis (Mycoplasma gallisepticum). Revue Scientifique et Technique. 2000;19(2):425-442.

[30] Marois C, Caron A, Le Gall F, Kempf I. In vitro activity of disinfectants against Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Veterinary Microbiology. 2000;76(3):285-291.

[31] Luttrell MP, Stallknecht DE, Kleven SH, Kavanaugh DM, Corn JL, Fischer JR. Mycoplasma gallisepticum in house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus) and other wild birds. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 2001;37(3):480-486.

[32] Kleven SH. Control of avian mycoplasma infections in commercial poultry. Avian Diseases. 2008;52(3):367-374.

[33] Rodriguez F, Kleven SH. Pathogenicity of two strains of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in chickens. Avian Diseases. 1980;24(4):900-907.

[34] Whithear KG, Soeripto, Harringan KE, Ghiocas E. Safety of temperature sensitive mutant Mycoplasma gallisepticum vaccine. Australian Veterinary Journal. 1990;67(5):159-165.

[35] Evans JD, Leigh SA, Branton SL, Collier SD, Pharr GT, Bearson SMD. Efficacy of a recombinant Mycoplasma gallisepticum vaccine in broiler chickens. Avian Diseases. 2007;51(4):869-874.

[36] Yagihashi T, Nunoya T, Sannai S, Tajima M. Evaluation of an inactivated Mycoplasma gallisepticum vaccine in chickens. Avian Diseases. 1992;36(3):590-596.

[37] Zhang GZ, Zhang R, Zhao HL, Wang XT, Zhang SP, Li XJ, et al. A recombinant fowlpox virus vaccine expressing the GapA and CrmA genes of Mycoplasma gallisepticum induces protective immunity in chickens. Vaccine. 2010;28(44):7148-7154.

[38] Kanci A, Wawegama NK, Marenda MS, Browning GF, Noormohammadi AH, Markham PF. Recombinant herpesvirus of turkeys expressing the GapA and CrmA genes of Mycoplasma gallisepticum induces protective immunity in chickens. Vaccine. 2018;36(48):7341-7348.

[39] Jordan FTW, Horrocks BK. The minimum inhibitory concentration of tilmicosin and tylosin for Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae. Avian Pathology. 1996;25(1):101-110.

[40] Kempf I, Reeve-Johnson L, Gesbert F, Guittet M. Efficacy of danofloxacin in the treatment of experimental Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection in chickens. Avian Pathology. 1997;26(2):395-406.

[41] Gerchman I, Levisohn S, Mikula I, Lysnyansky I. Characterization of in vivo-acquired resistance to macrolides of Mycoplasma gallisepticum strains isolated from poultry. Veterinary Microbiology. 2011;149(1-2):181-187.

[42] Lysnyansky I, Gerchman I, Mikula I, Gobbo F, Catania S, Levisohn S. Molecular characterization of acquired enrofloxacin resistance in Mycoplasma gallisepticum field isolates. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2013;57(7):3072-3077.

[43] Gautier-Bouchardon AV, Ferre S, Le Grand D, Paoli A, Gay E, Poumarat F. Overall decrease in the susceptibility of Mycoplasma bovis to antimicrobials over the last 30 years in France. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e87672.

[44] Levisohn S. Early stages in the interaction between Mycoplasma gallisepticum and the chick trachea. Israel Journal of Medical Sciences. 1984;20(10):982-984.

[45] Kleven SH. Eradication of Mycoplasma gallisepticum from a commercial broiler breeder flock. Avian Diseases. 1990;34(3):726-729.

[46] Gerchman I, Levisohn S, Mikula I, Lysnyansky I. In vitro susceptibility of Mycoplasma gallisepticum to antimicrobials. Veterinary Microbiology. 2008;131(3-4):333-338.

[47] Hannan PCT, Windsor GD, de Jong A, Schmeer N, Stegemann M. Comparative susceptibilities of various animal-pathogenic mycoplasmas to fluoroquinolones. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1997;41(9):2037-2040.

[48] Lysnyansky I, Gerchman I, Levisohn S, Mikula I, Fefer I, Yogev D. Molecular characterization of the Mycoplasma gallisepticum pvpA gene which encodes a putative variable cytadhesin protein. Infection and Immunity. 2001;69(7):4422-4428.

[49] Delaney NF, Balenger S, Bonneaud C, Marx CJ, Hill GE, Ferguson-Noel N, et al. Ultrafast evolution and loss of CRISPRs following a host shift in a novel wildlife pathogen, Mycoplasma gallisepticum. PLoS Genetics. 2012;8(2):e1002511.

[50] Tulman ER, Liao X, Kutish GF, Szczepanek SM, Geary SJ. The genome of Mycoplasma gallisepticum strain R(high) reveals a novel virulence-associated region. Journal of Bacteriology. 2012;194(5):1071-1081.